WASHINGTON — The Democratic party is the party of government because it embraces a proposition it has done much to refute — that government is a nimble, skillful social engineer — and because government employees are a significant component of the party’s base and of its financial support through government employees unions.

Franklin Roosevelt, architect of the modern party, believed unionization would be inappropriate in the public sector. Today’s party, however, aggressively uses government coercion to create supposed “government employees” from whom unions can extract money, some of it for the party.

This week, Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about whether the Illinois government’s policy of herding home-care workers into unions violates the workers’ First Amendment rights. It does.

Because organized labor’s presence in the private sector has shriveled from about 35 percent of the workforce in the 1950s to 6.6 percent today, public-sector employees are labor’s oxygen. In Democratic-controlled Illinois, the relationship between the party and organized labor is, to say no more, mutually congenial. So, the government declared that providers of home care — including family members — for the elderly and others are government employees because their compensation comes from Medicaid, and because they participate in a state government program and are subject to state regulation.

In 2003, Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, of fragrant memory, so decreed that thousands of home-care givers were public employees, and ordered recognition of whatever union thousands of caregivers would choose, which was the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). In 2009, the current Democratic governor, Pat Quinn, designated even more home caregivers as public employees, making them targets for “card check” unionization drives.

The state government gave SEIU and a rival union the names and addresses of all the freshly minted government employees. Pam Harris, who is suing to get Illinois’ system declared unconstitutional, gets a modest stipend from Medicaid to support her care for her profoundly disabled son. She remembers a young SEIU employee coming to her door to say just sign the card “so my boss knows I spoke to you.” A majority of caregivers in one Illinois program chose the SEIU.

Illinois’ scheme is a trifecta of constitutional violations. It violates the right of free association of those who are coerced into a fees-paying relationship with unions. Second, those coerced into unions are compelled to subsidize with their dues union speech with which they may strenuously disagree. Third, after being transformed by government fiat into government employees, they are denied the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances in their own voices, having been forced to allow a union to petition for them.

An amicus brief supporting Harris notes that “the state of Illinois has no cognizable interest in maintaining ‘labor peace’ among household workers or family members merely because they provide services to individuals who participate in a state program or because they are subject to state regulation.” “Labor peace” is the reason unionization is supposedly a legitimate state interest — sufficiently compelling, in certain circumstances, to allow states to compromise First Amendment protections.

“Labor peace” was an important interest when it entered labor law in 1917 in connection with a national railroad strike that might have seriously disrupted interstate commerce in wartime. But how could persons providing home care — including parents such as Pam Harris — threaten labor peace?

They actually are employees not of the government but of the care recipients, who hire the caregivers and determine working hours and conditions. So what is the point of a union in these circumstances? Enriching the union is the point.

Illinois’ system resembles that in some other states. Until Republicans repealed Michigan’s arrangements, the SEIU extracted more than $34 million from tens of thousands of caregivers. Patently, the purpose of such systems is to enable unions to siphon away, in dues, a portion of caregivers’ pay, some of which becomes campaign contributions for the political party that created the system. The court is unlikely to think the First Amendment should be diluted to accommodate this.

As you comment, please be respectful of other commenters and other viewpoints. Our goal with article comments is to provide a space for civil, informative and constructive conversations. We reserve the right to remove any comment we deem to be defamatory, rude, insulting to others, hateful, off-topic or reckless to the community. See our full terms of use here.

More in Opinion

RE-READING THE SECOND AMENDMENT In the wake of yet another school shooting carried out by an individual, I re-read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We are supposed to have a well-regulated militia. If we had one, members would be encouraged to defend liberty and not settle personal grievances by the use of firearms. Erik Westgard, Shoreview RESORTING...

New mayors in both of the Twin Cities have made clear that affordable housing ranks high among priorities for their administrations. But what’s a mayor to do about a problem as big and complex as this one? We asked two nonprofit housing experts — Paul Williams of Minneapolis-based Project for Pride in Living and Deidre Schmidt of St. Paul-based CommonBond...

In the immortal words of the late and great Jimmy Cannon, no one asked me but … The politics of opioid abuse: Don’t get me wrong. This problem is real, tragic and widespread, here and across the nation. Opioids were connected to 42,000 deaths in 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control. The president and Congress want to throw billions...

Do you remember when Edina was represented at the state Legislature — and Minnesota was represented at the Republican National Convention — by a black attorney? Probably not. John Frank Wheaton, a former shoe shine boy, became the first black man elected to the Minnesota Legislature in 1898, and his aristocratic district included Minneapolis’ Kenwood neighborhood and Edina. Across the...

No obscure Supreme Court ruling deserves its obscurity less than Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the transformational 1977 case in which the justices upheld mandatory dues for public-employee unions. At the time, collective bargaining in the public sector was new, an outgrowth of broader social upheavals, which included 1,400 public-employee work stoppages nationwide between 1965 and 1970. Abood assured...